Consistency in response to group pressures.

Rosner, Stanley

doi:10.1037/h0038517

Cited by 32 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, a family composed of high field articulators will establish interaction patterns that permit each individual maximum opportunity to examine and re‐examine the stimulus field free from coercive pressures from others, that might operate to restrict the range of his attention. Indeed, in small laboratory ad hoc groups, high field articulators successfully resist the pressure of group opinion (34). The family group would, we predict, maintain interaction patterns that permitted individuals to alert each other to relevant or hidden aspects of the environment's structure.…”

Section: Counterparts Of Family Dimensions In Individual Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Varieties of Consensual Experience

Reiss

1971

Family Process

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report is one in a continuing series concerning the relationship of family interaction and individual thinking (24, 25, 26, 27). On the basis of previous experiments in this series, we have begun to elaborate a theory concerning the family's shared, consensual experience of its environment. This paper will outline the theory and demonstrate how it can generate a set of predictive hypotheses. The theory of consensua experience has been developed to explain ways in which individuals employ their cognitive and perceptual resources in intimate relationships with others and to account for the ways in which these intimate relationships alter and mold cognition and perception.

show abstract

Section: Counterparts Of Family Dimensions In Individual Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Varieties of Consensual Experience

Reiss

1971

Family Process

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Insofar as (increasing numbers of) subjects become (increasingly) suspicious during the conformity trials, one might expect a decrease in conformity over trials. While some studies report no change (e.g., JuIian, Ryckman and Hollander, 1969; Moeller and Applezweig, 1957) or mixed results (e.g., Samelson, 1957;Willis and Hollander, 1964), more report a decrease in conformity as a function of trials (e.g., DiVesta, 1959; Goldberg and Lubin, 1958;Hollander, Julian and Haaland, 1965;Rosner, 1957;Sistrunk, 1969). In an unpublished study in which order of conformity trials was counterbalanced in two conditions, this author found conformity to be a significant concave downward decreasing function of trials, having both linear and quadratic components.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ineffective deception in conformity research: Some causes and consequences

Stang

1976

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For a time, many social psychologists were excited (if not pleased) with Kelman's (1967) suggestions for the use of role playing as an alternative to deception in research. While role playing usually has clear ethical advantages over deception studies, it lacks the control, realism, and explanatory power of the deception experiment; while role playing sometimes produces results apparently similar to the deception experiment (e.g., Stang, 1974a), the results are not always identical, and sometimes are quite different (e.g., Greenberg, 1967;Darroch and Steiner, 1970;Wicker and Bushweiler, 1970). In conformity research, successful deception has often produced different results than role playing (e.g., Horowitz and Rothschild, 1970;Willis and Willis, 1970), supplying partial information to Ss (Horowitz and Rothschild, 1970; but cf. Gallo, Smith and Mumford, 1973) or unsuc-* The author wishes to thank Monte

show abstract

“…Studies of interacting social groups have generally shown that fielddependent people are more likely than field-independent people to make use of information provided by others in arriving at their own views (e.g., ·Birmingham, 1974;Linton, 1955;Oltman, Goodenough, Witkin, Freedman, & Friedman. 1975;Paeth, 1973;Rosner, 1957;Shulman, 1975;Solar, Davenport, & Bruehl, 1969;Shaffer, Note 8). In the tasks used in these studies, which found field-dependent people more likely to take account of other's views in arriVing at their own, the information available to the subject for the judgment he was required to make was characteristically unclear or inadequate.…”

Section: Use Of External Social Referentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field Dependence Revisited

Witkin

Goodenough

1976

ETS Research Bulletin Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results of the large number of studies stimulated by the theory of psychological differentiation now make revision of the theory necessary. The model that is proposed seeks to accommodate, the recently accumulated findings on interpersonal behavior, cognitive restructuring skills and localization of neurophysiological functions. Central components of this model are the field‐dependent and field‐independent cognitive styles. These styles are conceived as tendencies to rely on internal or external referents in information processing, stemming from differences in extent of self‐nonself segregation. Reflecting these contrasting tendencies, field‐independent people do well in cognitive restructuring tasks and are limited in social sensitivity and social skills; field‐dependent people have greater social sensitivity and social skills but are not as competent in cognitive restructuring. The field‐dependence‐independence cognitive‐style dimension is thus bipolar with regard to level, having no clear “high” or “low” ends; and it is neutral with regard to value, each pole having qualities adaptive in particular circumstances. A distinction is drawn between people who are fixed in their use of a field‐dependent or field‐independent style and those who are mobile, having access to both.

show abstract

Consistency in response to group pressures.

Cited by 32 publications

References 3 publications

Varieties of Consensual Experience

Varieties of Consensual Experience

Ineffective deception in conformity research: Some causes and consequences

Field Dependence Revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About